AMIA ARCHIVE • View topic

Last edited by Flameborn on Sun, Jul 13 2014, 23:18 PM, edited 1 time in total.

Alright, I think this is a good idea, for people to step back, and think of constructive ways to keep conflict on Amia going for long periods of time, without making "Good" or "Evil" feel like they got the wrong end of the stick.

Im going to speak for myself the, since im alone.

My own is that we made this faction to give constructive, interesting evil PC conflict to an island without much of it. I know the dm's have their npc plots with evil, all looming, but we wanted to have our own impact.

A few bad experiences lately have really frustrated a lot of the Thayan players, many of which are so upset they want to leave the server, and thats TOTALLY ~NOT~ ok with me.

We made the Thayans to provide conflict, but not to be seen as a pvp happy group of characters that just kill everyone in their path, and in that regard, we succeeded greatly.

Whenever we found someone working against us, or happened to corner a "Good" player that had wronged us, we would bring them in, do some mild torture maybe, a whipping, some talk; But afterward, we would ALWAYS let them go. Either their body would be returned to their friends, or they would be allowed to walk out. ~This~ allows the conflict rp to continue, it allows them to get back up, and plot against us more, while building fear and respect for our faction.

The problem we've run into recently, is that the good players mass up, steamroll us, and burn the bodies, or keep them indefinitely in a dungeon. This forces us to either do a true rez (Which gets cheesy having to do it again and again) Or perma kill the character, putting a permanent stop to the conflict, and ultimately, to the fun of the whole faction.

I understand fully that "Good" guys need to fight evil, and I encourage this fully. But please, PLEASE do so in a way that allows conflict to continue.

I'm part of the Thayan faction, and I can speak for myself.

(I mean that in the nicest of ways, but you could have simply posted your thoughts as your own, I expect others of the group may have a similar feeling)

I plan to type out a huge thing on game design, and my ideas for how to create persistent PC-run conflict for Amia.

-but it will take me awhile.

Sorry FB, but you joined the Thayans, not made them.

I also would like to add that many of the Thayans don't agree with this post or feel the same way.

Last edited by Very_Svensk on Mon, Jul 14 2014, 1:46 AM, edited 1 time in total.

I don't agree at all.

Edit: I don't agree, because all of the points OP raised. If the good team can burn, inprison and massacre your PC's - So can you.

What don't you agree with?

As you wish, I changed it to only reflect my views then.

The goal to create PC to PC conflict, and by extension interest and IC friction, is to foster it in such a way that it generates RP. PvP can generate RP, but only if it's done responsibly. Perhaps try to move your faction toward things that could generate RP without PvP, but as well without abandoning everything you are now. On the other hand, often times I see people attacking evil PCs, losing, getting friends, possibly losing again, then slapping the(pardon the french) "PvP whore" label on people. It's not really a one way street here.

Caldera3 wrote:

The goal to create PC to PC conflict, and by extension interest and IC friction, is to foster it in such a way that it generates RP. PvP can generate RP, but only if it's done responsibly. Perhaps try to move your faction toward things that could generate RP without PvP, but as well without abandoning everything you are now. On the other hand, often times I see people attacking evil PCs, losing, getting friends, possibly losing again, then slapping the(pardon the french) "PvP whore" label on people. It's not really a one way street here.

Yep. Seen the whole "pvp whore" label plenty of times.

Caldera3 wrote:

The goal to create PC to PC conflict, and by extension interest and IC friction, is to foster it in such a way that it generates RP. PvP can generate RP, but only if it's done responsibly. Perhaps try to move your faction toward things that could generate RP without PvP, but as well without abandoning everything you are now. On the other hand, often times I see people attacking evil PCs, losing, getting friends, possibly losing again, then slapping the(pardon the french) "PvP whore" label on people. It's not really a one way street here.

I agree with you Caldera, this happens on both the good, and evil sides of conflict, and it needs to be addressed so people no longer feel that way, or the players who do pvp on unfair levels to see that you can have great rp without always "winning" by killing them

In my experience, the only time people get labeled (and even outright avoided by certain other players) is when those people complain OOC'ly about the outcome of whatever they tried to do. Or pretend it didn't happen. Or insult DMs or other players because of the event/incident.

In short, the real jackasses who make it seem like they can't lose without whining and crying about the other side cheating or something. They're the ones that get the other side of good/evil all up in arms about permanent removal.

If you avoid that and stick to creating conflict because you enjoy creating conflict for other players - and not get upset over losses and air your bad vibes where others can see/hear it - then there's no reason to worry about being treated like you're a bad egg of a player in general. And if you haven't gotten all pissed off over losing and you haven't treated your fellow players like they're cheating whenever you lose, and you haven't outright insulted the DMs' and other players' intelligence or honor or what-have-you, then I can't imagine why there'd be so much drama around the people who do create conflict. If there's drama, chances are someone perceived something you did as a jerk thing to do on an OOC level and bad vibes grew from there.

So yes, create conflict to your heart's content. But don't be a prick OOC if things don't go the way you want them to. And that goes for players of PCs both good and evil.

Flameborn wrote:

I understand fully that "Good" guys need to fight evil, and I encourage this fully. But please, PLEASE do so in a way that allows conflict to continue.

I myself, do agree with this, however.

(Since Sven is being silly I shall make a point of it)

-but in anycase back to FB

It's that you didn't ask us, chat with us, talk to us about posting things publicly that we were willing to talk about internally first, and then perhaps with the DM-team second.

Public forums are supposed to be for generalized statements. Rather than "this faction said/feels this", it should be more focused on the system itself and how to help all factions without having to name a specific one, or instance.

FB I know you may have your concerns, some valid ones even to hear and have made known (that some might even agree with you on!) but speaking for all of us without talking to us about it and asking us before taking it public doesn't help our reputation as a group.

Jes wrote:

In my experience, the only time people get labeled (and even outright avoided by certain other players) is when those people complain OOC'ly about the outcome of whatever they tried to do. Or pretend it didn't happen. Or insult DMs or other players because of the event/incident.

In short, the real jackasses who make it seem like they can't lose without whining and crying about the other side cheating or something. They're the ones that get the other side of good/evil all up in arms about permanent removal.

If you avoid that and stick to creating conflict because you enjoy creating conflict for other players - and not get upset over losses and air your bad vibes where others can see/hear it - then there's no reason to worry about being treated like you're a bad egg of a player in general. And if you haven't gotten all pissed off over losing and you haven't treated your fellow players like they're cheating whenever you lose, and you haven't outright insulted the DMs' and other players' intelligence or honor or what-have-you, then I can't imagine why there'd be so much drama around the people who do create conflict. If there's drama, chances are someone perceived something you did as a jerk thing to do on an OOC level and bad vibes grew from there.

So yes, create conflict to your heart's content. But don't be a prick OOC if things don't go the way you want them to. And that goes for players of PCs both good and evil.

I agree with this Jes, and ~I~ personally have made this mistake, very recently even. Im sorry, things got heated and I said things that were unfair to other players, and to the dm's involved.

That's a very mature way to respond, especially if recent events have made it apply to you. Kudos.

I've seen it from both sides of good and evil. It's a difficult thing to avoid, especially since we're all here to have fun and losing isn't always fun! Everyone involved just needs to remember that any player you're interacting with at any time on this server is here for the same thing you are - to impact the server and maintain a consistent world and story.

We're all in this together, and stuff.

I believe that the largest problem with all of this is that there is no real way to facilitate conflict other than PvP. Everything will inevitably be boiled down to who can stab who the hardest, and the only interaction possible with people on the opposite end of the alignment spectrum is through murder attempts.

Basically team good and team evil both respectively sit in their invincible untouchable fortresses, blaming everything bad in the island (ICly) on one another without ever doing anything about it; all because they can't do anything about it. No one side of this conflict is required to do anything other than out murder the other because they aren't competing for anything particularly meaningful (except maybe one or two plot specific things, that half of players don't care about anyway).

They don't have any common grounds on which they are forced to interact through anything but murder. The Thayans will only be considered PvP hounds because the only thing they can particularly do is paint a big target on themselves and kill anyone who comes after them. End of story.

I play an evil character and a jerk-ish neutral character primarily. And it absolutely depresses me that I've had to make another character entirely just for the sake of meeting people on the opposite end of the alignment spectrum because the first reaction I get from anyone outside of my own little group is 'piss off, scum'. Sure enough, I'm an evil character. Sure, that reaction is perfectly valid, but I'd like to be able to develop some sort of relationship outside of mutual desire to stab one another. I want rivalries, I want competition, I want interpersonal conflict, but as things are now I can only see that stemming from who stabbed who.

Because you guys are all awesome, and I want to interact with you.

There needs to be reasons which force people to interact. And overall there needs to be failure states less severe than 'dead' or 'banished from everywhere', because that can only shut people out from our already untouchable fortresses. I'd rather invite you into my Tarkuul office for tea than fight with most of you, quite frankly.

I like to think I played a successfully evil PC without having to utilize PvP often at all. It's very possible to chip away at influence or resources without having to burninate the peasants.

I made this thread to try and help this issue, that so many people suffer from, myself included.

I really just want everyone to have fun, and to be able to continue to have fun, not be or feel stopped by anyone else.

Last edited by Flameborn on Mon, Jul 14 2014, 2:06 AM, edited 1 time in total.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

I like to think I played a successfully evil PC without having to utilize PvP often at all. It's very possible to chip away at influence or resources without having to burninate the peasants.

I think so as well! This is why wicket so rarely pvp's. Unless she's attacked, or specifically ordered by her superiors, she doesnt pvp.

NinjaClarinet wrote:

without having to burninate the peasants.

But that's the best part!

I gotta put it out there. I have so far absolutely loved hearing of the Thayans.

I've personally not had much interaction with them, since my toons are the kind to rather avoid a force they know to be able to poop on 'em.

And I know tediously True ressing is a pain because I've done it before. I know the rule is that you can only hold someone with out player or DM consent for 24 hours at a maximum. You can only be Perma'd by your consent, meaning they have to ask before burning your corpse or forcing you into a TR. But people are completely disregarding this in more than one or two cases I know of in the past couple weeks.

This server does well with secretive evils, NC. They're the one's who I've seen with the most success and longevity. But the actual, perceived conflict between this kind of character and others, when playing a secretive evil, tends to be very light, if even recognizable.

I say this from having played 'secretive' (To some degree of success, not as much as your own) evils. You might well be 'engaged' with a number of people, but the nature of your evil actions demands secrecy, and only very rarely will people even recognize the consequences that have arrived to them as being the result of PC conflict. It's the nature of Secret Evils, in that you have to remain secret! As with most generalizations, mind, there will be exceptions to what I said (And I could even name a few wonderful conflicts started from secretive evils).

What the OP is trying to tackle, however, is Open PC conflict. Outwardly Evil vs Good, or outwardly Law vs Chaos. Something that people can get involved with because they know that it's there.

I think Murkoph's insight is pretty interesting.

It must likely sound as if this is coming from an event, or that as a group we've bottled this great emotional trauma up and released it, but I'm approaching this from a more academic angle. My efforts in this recent faction were in order to study our current paradigm, experiment, test theories, and learn. And boy, did I learn.

Here's a few things I urged and learned:

1.) Let your opponent live.
That a group should absolutely avoid killing it's enemies. PvP could come up, as it often might for an open evil. But subdue your opponents, keep them alive. Find other ways to punish and interact with them, but do so with them being alive.
- This gives your group credibility. If you try to eliminate your foes by killing them, and they keep cropping back up, your every effort will ultimately be seen as a failure. You were unable to keep your foes from staying dead. If you keep them alive, however, you can claim, "I never wanted them dead, only to suffer." Or, "Their efforts were not worthy of death."
- People will be more willing to accept consequences to their character if their character isn't killed all the time. People enjoy sporting wounds from torture rather than death. For the same reason that everyone hates dying and coming back to life, your opponents will too. It's really a pretty thoughtful courtesy to make sure they're alive, if you can help it. If you keep an opponent alive, you can release them, you encourage rescue attempts, you encourage whole fields of interactive captive RP that simply would not have happened if you killed your opponent.
- It's also strategically significant. If you kill your opponent, you have to raise them from the dead to interact with them, gain information, or use them in any way, shape, or means. Your opponents can also resurrect them while they're in your custody, and the dead captive can refuse your raises. In 90% of my experiences with captive players, leaving your opponent alive and knocked out was better received and much more beneficial than killing them.

2.) Always be polite OOCly.
One of my biggest beliefs is that a faction succeeds or fails on a basis of how it is perceived OOCly. For exactly the same reasons that Jes mentioned above-- you can do almost anything, as long as you're nice, polite, and considerate to other players.
- If you do get mad, and can't find yourself being polite-- don't talk. And especially don't talk in Party Chat. Excessive, or even toxic negativity in Party chat is always seen by the DM team. And you do not want to get the DM team believing that you can't handle consequences.

3.) Try to be constructive, instead of destructive.*
I've preached on this before, but I've found it to be... difficult in true gameplay. I'm no longer sure how applicable it is. It was much, much harder than I initially surmised to create a building, a base, barriers. To acquire enough NPC's to defend yourself. For the first 3 months of your faction activity, you're not going to be getting NPC support and faction legitimacy in the way of buildings. It's why rental houses are a thing (Though, somewhat frustratingly, very few Rental Houses appear out of settlements. If you've got a faction that can't be near a settlement-- tough noogies). And that's not to decry the DM's in their decision to do this, either. It's a great thing for them to wait, to make sure that a faction will survive, to make sure it's a positive influence, before awarding them defensible resources. Imagine the strain on our designers if they were to make or create faction bases for every faction that wanted one-- and then only to see it disappear two weeks later to inactivity.

However, this waiting makes it very difficult for an Openly Conflict-based faction to successfully be constructive in it's first few months of Rp, which, as it would have it-- tend to be the most defining moments in a faction's efforts.

But these conclusions lead me to a 4th point.

4.) Don't be too optimistic.
To make a long-lasting Amian conflict faction that makes a lasting impact and extends beyond casual back-and-forth conflict, you've got to play the Amian politics game. This might require laying low for the first few months of RP, waiting for an opportune time. Don't rush these first few stages, even if you're excited to get to the action. Be patient, develop your characters.

5.) Understand the Amian Infrastructure for Conflict
This one's tough. And, if I'm being frank, not that optimistic. If you want to play an outwardly conflict-based faction, you need to understand the elements at play. There are currently 2 major cities that are capable of supporting these outward conflict factions: Tarkuul and Wiltun. But both of these, like one might expect from a franchise, come with certain regulations and drawbacks. Tarkuul is pretty outwardly and obviously wicked, but has spent years ensuring its neutrality-- and will not sacrifice this neutrality to provide refuge to a faction that brings negative attention back to themselves. This is a totally justified and reasonable IC response, mind! They want to survive, not be a part of some gang fighting, or trivial pursuits elsewhere. And they certainly don't want enemy cities bearing down on them for choosing the wrong friends. I happily await the day that Tarkuul has its eggs in order and is ready to be that outward evil-- but it might not come, and I don't believe it's here yet. That's not to trash Tarkuul, either. We can be sober in saying that Tarkuul is not interested in open conflict with other cities or factions without saying that because of this, Tarkuul is bad. Because it's not. It gives great Rp.

Wiltun is kind of similar in these regards, though certainly more outwardly ambitious. However, Wiltun has a much more condensed flavor to it. Your faction ideals may simply not fit!

And.. that's it! That's all we've got at the moment for a new faction that wants to be supported by NPC's and wants to be on the surface. To some, it's a bleak image. But it's not impossible to work with, either. If you've got a faction that doesn't fall in line with the above routes, you'll have to forge your own way. And this is entirely possible-- but in order to do so, you need to be strategical about it. You can't acquire too many enemies too quickly without having your defenses and legitimacy in order. And it WILL take time.

That's my current observations. I'll give a few more later, I'm sure.

But I'm also kind of curious from a personal standpoint too. As a prominent player in the Thayan faction-- What feedback can you give us to make your experience better? You may not believe it, but we are absolutely doing what we are for you. To try to make Amia fun, and engaging. To give players something to get involved in that doesn't require DM plots.

But honestly, this requires cooperation. Understanding. How can we make it better for you guys? You guys have seen tastes of it, how can we improve? We really want your feedback, and.. I'm sorry for hijacking this thread for it, haha. But your feedback matters!

Mr. Hackums wrote:

I happily await the day that Tarkuul has its eggs in order and is ready to be that outward evil-- but it might not come, and I don't believe it's here yet. That's not to trash Tarkuul, either. We can be sober in saying that Tarkuul is not interested in open conflict with other cities or factions without saying that because of this, Tarkuul is bad. Because it's not. It gives great Rp.

It's actually a running joke in Tarkuul that things would be way easier for us as a faction if we could ever actually do something evil; all because whenever something bad happens the Living City inevitably gets blamed but Tarkuul never benefits from it. And all the while we're stuck in the middle of plots which require Tarkuul to fight against a greater evil that threatens everyone, and are completely unable to generate any real RP from this because the other good factions that I'd love to be uneasily working alongside will simply refuse to talk with us, or outright try and kill us.

And I honestly do believe that this is a terrible thing, not just for us players but the DM's for these plots as well. If three or four opposing factions who ICly don't interact outside of violence want to be involved with a plot that dictates they must be involved with it means that if these divisions are maintained then the DM's have to functionally maintain three or four separate plot threads in order to involve everyone. However if we could interact in a conflicting manner that isn't entirely separated then it just means there's only really one plot thread which must be maintained. The problem I'm seeing in Tarkuul right now is that we're all just sitting around going 'Well, has the plot swung around to focus on us again? Nope? Oh well: Back to doing things completely unrelated to anything.'

It's a massive 'don't split the party' problem; the bane of tabletop RPG's extrapolated to 'don't split the playerbase'.

The fix to that predicament is rather simple. Its roots are in the very definite OOC certainty these factions have that they are right, and they will survive the plot without help from "teh evils" or compromising their power base in any manner and, perhaps, letting in new blood that may bring in something that side-tracks them from their perception of flawless victory.

That is a toxic OOC attitude to foster. It creates exactly the situation where folk gravitate towards what they assume is team win to get through it with max rewards and minimal risks.

There's only one thing you can really do about it, truth be told:

If they're going to do it, alone, and be picky about their help in the face of literal armageddon, they're understaffed. Realistically speaking, a lot of them should die. No need to kill them all at once. That will completely terminate things, but if someone wants to siginificantly progress while snubbing people who have offered to help? And expects to live through it?

Make the price for that solo heroism and plot progression their permanent death. Garuanteed shift in attitude once people notice you're serious. Works every time. :mrgreen:

Murkoph wrote:

completely unable to generate any real RP from this because the other good factions that I'd love to be uneasily working alongside will simply refuse to talk with us, or outright try and kill us.

Really? Tarkuul not long ago had its claws in Winya's shoulder, and currently has a whole section of Cordor to play in. I just learned IC, that some other big city is working with Tarkuul too.

Murkoph wrote:

we're all just sitting around going 'Well, has the plot swung around to focus on us again? Nope? Oh well: Back to doing things completely unrelated to anything.'

Great attitude there.
Welcome to my world. (The Grove and Caraigh) yeah, I put that there
But our unrelated things are something, we're 'trying' to maintain RP, keep it going.
At least Tarkuul gets some of the limelight.

I personally don't think it's a problem that paladins (and other vehemently good folk) won't throw away their vows and work with evil to fight a greater evil. And it's not entirely fair to say that they should be slaughtered because they're sticking to their guns. Because, you know...they could lose favor with their gods if they did that. And if a plot has become so grand-scale that that's the only option or else people will die? Then yes, people will die.

Evil being all right with working with goody-goodies to fight off UberEviloftheYear is an entirely different matter than a good-goody being all right with working with evil to fight them off. There's a reason that playing a paladin is so damn hard to do properly. I think it's a point in their favor that they stick to their guns even in the face of mortal danger and it shouldn't be made out to be "toxic" or "terrible" for the server.

It's a whole lot easier to roll over and play with the bad guys. Not doing so makes it interesting.

Not every good guy is a paladin, and not every task in a global conflict need even be carried on side by side. When you approach the truly global scale, you have every, literally every tool at your disposal to be inclusive, because you can be both inclusive and compartmentalise. Not even every character need talk to the other group, and small skirmishes are like to break out even between allies over smaller, more personal matters. That's the nature of the game.

I'm also not talking about punishment here. I'm talking about upping the stakes and the sense of urgency, of creating a dramatic arc. In a plot of such scale, there should be no OOC certainty that you will see the light of day after an event. There should be the feeling that one misstep might be your last. The people not willing to take that dive will step back and move to more supportive roles, while those comfortable with the risk will step to the fore. And the first people you "bump off"? They usually elect themselves through their IC choices, and while sometimes tragic, a death resulting from their own IC decisions, in full potential awareness of the risks, is generally a worthwhile and fun one.

What is toxic and terrible is that the danger is not felt to be mortal at all. There's a fairly up beat "We're gonna win anyway cause we're the good guys" mentality going around, which makes it easy to "do the right thing", where realistically speaking, "the right thing" is a very very risky endeavour.

Personally? It's fine to be the good guy. It's great even.

But it shouldn't be trivial.

Eh, I would argue that the mentality of "We're the Good guys and we're going to win anyway" isn't actually a thing. I think it's more that they've made a decision to stay true to their moralities and codes-- so while they sacrifice their bodies, maybe, they retain their sense of self.

After all, if winning means losing yourself, what's the point of winning? I think that's the rationale that good guys are using. Not, "Lawl, we're going to win." In fact, OOCly, I know a lot of Good players are having a hard time logging on because they feel very strongly that there's nothing they can do -to- win.

It's easy to make that statement, Born, but I don't think it's accurate, unfortunately.

I have to chime in with Team Good's perspective here, as well. Jes made some good observations already.

BornToKill wrote:

What is toxic and terrible is that the danger is not felt to be mortal at all. There's a fairly up beat "We're gonna win anyway cause we're the good guys" mentality going around, which makes it easy to "do the right thing", where realistically speaking, "the right thing" is a very very risky endeavour.

I'm not sure where this is happening. Speaking from my experiences and perspective, and in regards to the current plot arc that dominates the server, Team Good is well aware that the odds are strongly against them and it will take a miracle to have a chance at surviving. If you think we are so flagrant in our RP, please give us the benefit of the doubt, here.

Jes wrote:

It's a whole lot easier to roll over and play with the bad guys. Not doing so makes it interesting.

And sometimes its fun to deal with the devil. Speaking generally, this does happen. But when it does, it is not obvious. So I'll take the fact that it is perceived not to happen as a kudos.

There is also the conundrum Team Good faces, when a member of Team Evil is in their custody. Consider Sir Shiny McTightassStein has captured his nemesis, Baron Vile Von EvilBabyEaterson. He has several options. He can let the evil baron go, and face the fact that he has just endangered innocents by doing so. He might fall for doing this. He can throw the baron in prison for life, as his crimes befit. This is against server rules without consent. He can try to rehabilitate the baron, which again requires OOC consent to waive the 24-hour captivity rule. Or he can execute the baron, and hope that the time that passes between his death and likely resurrection will spare some lives. Chances are, the latter option is taken because it is the best and oft times only option available. It is the only one that does not require OOC consent that is not guaranteed to be a given. It also allows the player of the baron the chance to get back to playing the game. So, while it does not serve to perpetuate continual conflict... Team Good, by definition, does not want continual conflict.

Much to the contrary...

Nivo wrote:

There is also the conundrum Team Good faces, when a member of Team Evil is in their custody. Consider Sir Shiny McTightassStein has captured his nemesis, Baron Vile Von EvilBabyEaterson. He has several options. He can let the evil baron go, and face the fact that he has just endangered innocents by doing so. He might fall for doing this. He can throw the baron in prison for life, as his crimes befit. This is against server rules without consent. He can try to rehabilitate the baron, which again requires OOC consent to waive the 24-hour captivity rule. Or he can execute the baron, and hope that the time that passes between his death and likely resurrection will spare some lives. Chances are, the latter option is taken because it is the best and oft times only option available. It is the only one that does not require OOC consent that is not guaranteed to be a given. It also allows the player of the baron the chance to get back to playing the game. So, while it does not serve to perpetuate continual conflict... Team Good, by definition, does not want continual conflict.

Much to the contrary...

There has to be another way, punishment thats not just murdering them?

At least bury them where Evilbabyeatersons friends can come and dig him up?

Honestly? It's all I've seen from some of them on the forums and IG while I was IG (which was a while ago), so it's all I can go on. That said, if it's no longer accurate, it's no longer accurate and presents another problem entirely that's inherent in the global threat scale plot. They're extremely hard to balance to the point where you keep people motivated enough to pull through, while keeping things harsh enough to keep their guard up. The crux of it is, that middle ground differs from player to player. What's too much for one isn't enough for the other, and with so many factions involved, it's easy for one to fall by the wayside. That may go well beyond the scope of this thread. But if the global threat isn't enough to get folks working together even rudimentarily, well, what can you do? Make it more serious? Yeah. If it's already too serious, though, maybe the solution to both problems is one and the same:

Give team evil the optional out/MacGuffin for team good.

RE other options: Outright murdering them is fine, however, it entails a give and take. If you, team good, are going to execute the villains, you have to be prepared to take the very same fall when they get you. If team evil is being so considerate as to not perm your asses, then think outside the box. 'course, good does have virtues such as mercy, and rehabilitation...

I can only speak for myself, mind-- but I would much rather consent to being held prisoner and Rp'd with, interrogated, etc rather than being killed and discarded. I try to treat death as seriously as I can, and I can sympathize with the IC need to eliminate the threat in its entirety.

But is there a consideration OOCly? Is there a will to OOCly continue conflict? How can we bridge this gap? ICly, none of us want conflict to continue-- but OOCly, we do (At least, that's the assumption). We've tried to come up with ways for it to work, are there any ways that the good guys can feel comfortable doing this?

I would personally suggest being comfortable with asking players if they have objections to prisoner Rp? Or rather, if they would be willing to consent to longer RP. Trials, interrogations, imprisonment. Still being RP'd with, mind. I know myself, and I would be willing to bet others, would readily consent to these kind of punishments if it meant that we weren't just killed and discarded. Let the bad guys take someone captive and force a prisoner exchange, let there be other conflicting forces that can let someone have quality Rp while still being captive in Kohlingen.

You won't get everyone to be willing, but you'll likely get a surprising few. You'll get many, many more if you make it really interesting Rp, too.

Flameborn wrote:

There has to be another way, punishment thats not just murdering them?

At least bury them where Evilbabyeatersons friends can come and dig him up?

I've seen it done several ways. For most evil PCs, their crimes are of a more severe nature. Killing, torture, evil plotting and etc. These aren't slip-on-the-wrist offenses. Nor can Team Good, for the most part, torture the evil out of them. I've seen a few rehabilitation attempts, and this is a good way for good and evil to interact. But again, it requires understanding of the 24-hour captivity rule being waives.

And I recall some old Triadic Knight RP, where bad-guys were buried and then dug up by their friends. Also some hand-waved 'Oh, he escaped the prison cell after only being in there for 24 hours. The guards didn't see anything.' situations where it was just understood there is no way Team Good would let the evil assassin/palemaster/Babyeater out of prison, but could not keep him either..

There are simply times where Team Good has narrow options when respecting both server rules and their own alignments and sense of duty/morality/etc.

Exactly.

And Flameborn:

For someone who's committed serious enough offenses, anything lest than the absolute best effort to ensure they don't continue doing what they do is outside of what'd be appropriate for the characters, and as Nivo notes: We have the 24 hour rule and strict rules regarding Perm ..

I don't think we're going to have a simple answer that everyone will be happy with to be honest.

Mr. Hackums wrote:

Trials

What would the sentence be, in a trial? Again, it would require the OOC consent of the player involved. Else he can not be kept, sentenced, etc. I think the unfortunate perspective is, it is easier to execute the bad guy and pray he does not kill again.

BornToKill wrote:

If team evil is being so considerate as to not perm your asses

No PC can enforce perma. Good or evil or pansy fence-sitting neutrals.

Quote:

Nive Said :

For most evil PCs, their crimes are of a more severe nature. Killing, torture, evil plotting

I agree with Nivo. A lot of the Conflict on Amia from Good vs. Evil is more focused on Evil doing some severe crimes. Good Alignments, specially Paladins aren't going to man-hunt you down for wearing your helmet in a city or small Misdemeanors. It takes a large severe nature crime to really grab a Good Alignment attention. Killing, Torture, evil plotting will get some Good Alignment attention. I also agree Good Alignment characters have a much narrower path then Evil.

Many non-deity evil characters just cause random acts of violence, and the Players of the PCs complain if they get caught. There may be some Good conflict, such as rivals. People who play evil characters in my eyes have to understand the darker the path, the harder the Roleplay.

I guess what I'm saying is that the positive trend has to start somewhere. It won't always work.

We've been doing our part by not killing and trying to release when we can. We get captives who don't always want to play along, just as I imagine you'll get bad guys who don't want to submit to punishments, and can't be held.

But there -will- be people who have a higher sense of quality RP on both sides. Wouldn't it be sour to hold everyone to the lowest expectation? To just kill and drop, regardless of who it was, or what RP could come, just because of negative incidents we've had in the past? We should constantly seek to cooperate and find out who gives good, quality captive RP. Who is willing to face dynamic punishments, who isn't, and how to handle people on an individual case.

I think that, given the responses, there's some rightful frustration. I would sincerely hope that the good guys aren't trying to extinguish PC conflict permanently OOCly. ICly is fine, but you can always adjust IC responses to accommodate for OOC intentions. It just takes some creativity in justifications and results.

I'd be more than happy to work with and suggest alternative solutions to Kohlingen folk. I used to play good guys. I know the struggles faced, but I'm confident we can reach cooperation.

Agreed, Hackums. I think as long as both parties know where the other is coming from, and are willing to roll with the punches, it will lead to a more enriching and enjoyable experience for all involved.

I just wanted to highlight the perspective from the other side of the fence, here.

The trial option gets you the truly lawful good approach, as well as, eventually, lawyers (by default LE at best

) and thus, the need to hammer out a legislature, as well as test and approve practitioners of IC law. All these are very valid venues of RP that go beyond conflict, but stem from and feed it at the same time. If someone doesn't want to show for their trial, that's fine, too. Talk it out with the player, figure out how to handle it ICly. It's the same as a fade in a torture scene for example. Brief recap of what happened, then allow RP to progress normally from there again.

Quote:

and the Players of the PCs complain if they get caught.

Yeah, that problem is not alignment based. "Not playing on a really bad day" generally solves it.

Many players have bad days in Real Life. They wish to get away from the Drama, and play Amia. To me that's not the best idea. Because when players OOCly are upset about Real life topics. In game they can make Roleplay a bit more difficult. Players to me if upset should take a day or so break from Amia. Many people regret the Roleplay they do upset vs. In a normal state of mind.

Team Evil. Team Good...
What about Team Neutral huh? Where's the love?

Do you think we enjoy playing both sides of the fence?

We Do!

Kudark wrote:

What about Team Neutral huh? Where's the love?

*Neutral Fist-bump*

What do we want?!
To be left alone!
When do we want it?!
Whenever!

I think the key to understanding positive conflict is understanding diversity, FB. No two players are looking for the same outcome- Good or Evil. I often find both sides' tactics boring and I've endeavored to avoid the trends all my time here. Prison as a last resort; PvP is much more fun when it ends in a "lesson" persay. A look-I-won-I'm-more-badass and intimidation factor. I think too often (and in this thread already on both sides...) people say "but putting you in prison/killing you is what Good/Evil people would do!!!"

Yes, perhaps it is. I'm not disagreeing with that... I'm just pointing out that it gets old to have someone do the same thing over and over. Sam has been both tortured and a torturer (most of you Goodies can't say that! Bwahaha- also sorry Darby). I like to think both have gone very well! And the key was creativity, communication and understanding.

In short: try to never do the same thing twice. This place is like a small town. We always know. (And unless it's tailored to our character or style, it's likely it's already happened to us before.)

PS this particular Thayan group is one of my favorite evil groups I've ever seen on Amia!

someone's gonna lose and someone's gonna get mad

I keep a bottle of Tabasco sauce next to my computer. Every time something in game makes me mad, I take a sip to calm down. :^)

Despite being IC (and OOCly) worried about the Thayans in some regard, I got upset at the idea of a falling out. Please don't. I'll be your nemesis and completely support you, good or evil; gotta have fun here.

I didn't read the bulk of this thread but got the gist. It seems we are unanimous in general- we're all here for the same reason. But instead of repeating previous posters, some brief points. I've been here a while and I've matured as a player. Here's my account if you feel like reading. Madrik is my main so will use that character as an example.

-I tend to be buds OOCly with everyone Madrik is an enemy of IC. No drama. I can't stomach it. If there's a dispute, be professional, courteous and involve a DM. Some of you are enemies and I send a tell asking how things are going, because c'mon, I love you guys!

-True RP is fun. I haven't been captured (unintentionally) for a long while but when I am, then that's it. I'm your prisoner, do what you will (but no soap-dropping). Don't release me if you wouldn't IC. I might be busy with stuff and capture interrupts other RP but that's just how it is. Be realistic. The only down side is when you want to RP when your captor is offline. Poor Krin and his gate-staring.

-When it comes to me, I allow everything that's viable, in the rules and realistic. So, basically anything.

-I'm kind of over out right PvP. You win, you lose, tie or burn a body, yawn, finish your whiskey. Try fighting with dice rolls and narrating moves and the like. Man it's fun. Gives you time to think.

-ICly train anyway! In light of the Thayans, Madrik has been training with mages and I'm brushing up on my OOC knowledge I'll need to fight, in case it happens. Some players don't want to fight the other way. Don't argue, have respect.

-Offer your outs. Sometimes players just don't have the time for a battle and dealing with whatever the outcome. Respect outs, respect each other OOCly (but go ahead and talk friendly trash).

My involvement in this plot has intrigued me so much, I'm more into it than the whole Madrik leaving the helm thing. There is a twist occurring that is fascinating to me between Madrik, Viola and her Thayan brother Vassilis.

Madrik has become a pacifist, arbiter, librarian, etcetera and avoids direct combat but is definitely capable. More fun and more relative to who he is, words are preferred. Plotting and planning the Oghma way. I love conflict and Madrik's being RPed like the conflicts you see Game of Thrones- beyond hack-and-slash. I want y'all to have a good time at my expense.

Well here's my rant I said I was going to post;
(enjoy!)

Old quote from:

The Great Equalizer wrote:

-Get a bunch more DM support for evil groups.
-Get evil NPCs to work with those groups.
-*Possibly make a DM NPC faction with a charismatic leader to help unite evil groups (if the players can't do it themselves)
-Found badass evil city (on the surface, not UD, just for clarification).
-Basically create the injustice league on amia.

or a general approximation there of really needs to happen in my opinion if you want to get some nice conflict back in the player base and have evil not keep getting trounced.

This creates a political environment of evil, where you can literally create a melting-pot for evil toons (who will always enjoy backstabbing each-other in interesting RP, as evil toons tend to do) while at the same time, giving the good-side something to battle against. A major PC-involved/driven city-power that is open evil. (I have high hopes for a certain Empire IG, smevil has no problem causing conflict with itself, it's -reallllly- hard to have too much of it, if everyone was LE, we'd still be entertained fighting each-other IG)

^ that does not mean however to give players city npc armies to command outright as that would be causing 'in' and 'out' groups too heavily, but do allow them influence in the city if they strive for it, and if it's for the good of the entire city and the ruling body of the city agrees on it, then ok, army at DM discretion in major war-like event. (In general the PC toons should handle their IC conflicts with scattered(cause timezones/busy) support-role from DM's when they are available. The focus largely remains on the player-driven RP then.) DM's in this way enhance the existing RP.

In my estimation Tarkuul doesn't see how it is as politically favorable to be the open-evil, as they will likely get attacked by every other good/neutral group out there until destroyed, so they bide their time slowwwly getting stronger. That works for secret-evil! sure, but not for open evil. >.< (-and because the presence of open evil is so small server-wide, this allows the (coined term) 'goodly-horde' to amass against one target all at once unhindered, putting the bad guys at terrible disadvantage (usually, unless you're a group of 14+ thayans and can take them on whilst being totally outnumbered

). It usually gets crushed in short order (See Banite Fortress ruins, Orcus cult fortress ruins, Wyrmhold ruins, ect), and then the server returns to stagnation having defeated all of the evil and winning the day. (...who wants that? that's boring for both sides, Conflict creates things to do and is a critical element in all games/movies/stories/ect)

Player-driven conflict, is tangible, and generally fits all timezones. DM conflict is limited, involves lots of effort by one person, and results in some waiting times..where players are idling feeling things like 'powerlessness' or uncaring, (perhaps boredom when they have nothing else to do) because the DM is a human, and can't do everything, and can't be online 24/7. (oh dear, the plights of mere mortals with DM next to their name

) It's simply not realistic to expect the DM's to manage/run/facilitate/cause all of the conflict for the entire server.

I think another issue we're really driving around is the lack of options for consequence. (among PCs)

Option A: Slay them and dump the bodies...
Option B: .......? missing?? (error, refer back to option A??)

That's not really the most ideal situation, so in counter to that, I'd throw more changes in the pot to make the conflict more meaningful.

Political changes (Diplomacy, and when that falls, PC-wars among factions, until they can't afford the conflict or lose the battle/war and get occupied) [Occupation RP can be awesome too! New sheriff in town!]
Resource changes (like for cities especially, battles/wars can be expensive!) [NPC Troop count lowering included]
True-Rez-Req (In high-stakes environments, forcing true res on both sides can add both a cooling-off period where their defenses are down/weakened, and a gold cost to acquire gems for the raise + clerical RP with dm-oversight to pull it off) [They still have an out as players, by choosing to not be involved in groups that are going for high-stakes situations]

Jailbreak-Rp is also a favorite, anything to reduce the stigma of 'invulnerable fortresses' is a winner in my book. (Idea requires some re-work of NPC's and meta-rules regarding them, OR a DM present to run it).

All those ideas center around adding actual consequence (and meaning) to IC actions. (Which then creates a Persistent World, Persistent Conflict, Persistent Entertainment Server) that's my flavor of fun!

Kudark wrote:

What about Team Neutral huh?

Team Neutral = Team Good.

Mr.Hackmus wrote:

5.) Understand the Amian Infrastructure for Conflict
This one's tough. And, if I'm being frank, not that optimistic. If you want to play an outwardly conflict-based faction, you need to understand the elements at play. There are currently 2 major cities that are capable of supporting these outward conflict factions: Tarkuul and Wiltun. But both of these, like one might expect from a franchise, come with certain regulations and drawbacks. Tarkuul is pretty outwardly and obviously wicked, but has spent years ensuring its neutrality-- and will not sacrifice this neutrality to provide refuge to a faction that brings negative attention back to themselves. This is a totally justified and reasonable IC response, mind! They want to survive, not be a part of some gang fighting, or trivial pursuits elsewhere. And they certainly don't want enemy cities bearing down on them for choosing the wrong friends. I happily await the day that Tarkuul has its eggs in order and is ready to be that outward evil-- but it might not come, and I don't believe it's here yet. That's not to trash Tarkuul, either. We can be sober in saying that Tarkuul is not interested in open conflict with other cities or factions without saying that because of this, Tarkuul is bad. Because it's not. It gives great Rp.

This is absolutely spot on. I can confirm that Tarkuul fetched a bone to every single uprising faction looking for support, or at least taken it into consideration. Some of them were offered permanent housing, some of them were offered deity idols or shrines, some were offered mere advice, intelligence or military support. I can also say that no PC driven faction seized the chance. Some of them were unfit (for the reasons Hackmus wrote), some of them just fell apart, some of them just could not accept the price for Tarkuul's services (do not expect to get anything for free, unless it directly serves Tarkuul's interests in some way).

Nivo and Flameborn did a pretty good job at describing the situation that is persistent on the two ends of the spectrum. The manner I feel would help this the most is an approach from two sides.

The first is to make pvp conflict carry with it consequences, that discourage repetitive pvp encounters and make those that occur more meaningful. The basic concept here is that there is a wound system, as I brought up as a suggestion at least five times now. If your character dies during a pvp encounter, there is a chance for temporary stackable penalties affect the character for a period of two weeks or so. -2ab from a broken arm, -2int from a concussion, etc. Most Recent Version on the Tester Forum and the Less Recent, less fine tuned version on the GD forum.

An additional aspect to the wound system is that of claimed territories. If you die on homeground the chance for penalties is smaller, if you die on foreign ground they are normal, if you die on the homeground of another group it is higher. If the malarites claim the western wilderness of Amia forest, daring to go into that forest is dangerous. In turn, them harrasing Bendir Dale is more dangerous for them.

This also applies to events, allowing the other side to affect your character to a stronger degree. If you are a good guy and want to destroy the banite keep, failure and capture means that your character can be held for two weeks instead of one day. If you want to murder civilians by infiltrating Kohlingen, and are caught or killed, your character will also be out of the running for two weeks.

The second is to try to find ways of conflict that do not require pvp encounters. Violence breeds violence is a pretty accurate description for Amia. You attack person A, and then her friends will want revenge. You kill those, and their friends will also want revenge. So after a few encounters, soon can get the whole isle to be after you. Case in point, thayans messed with Alanna, and now Rob has a greater interrest in putting you in the ground. Finding ways for both groups to affect eachother and gain an advantage, without it needing to be simple pvp conflict, is a good way to help make the conflicts more interresting.

I wrote a few paragraphs in my last post about the wound system in my last post as well, but then I gave up. Greater Restoration and Regenerate are plot breakers and they need to be tweaked. So you get branded by an evil guy. No problem, you'll just walk to the closest Cleric and he'll give you a plastic surgery in the matter of moments. I'd like to see scars, disfigurements, broken noses and teeth. Consequences. It is all about consequences.

Face of a Warrior.

Face of a male underwear model.

How to garner positive conflict.

Who is online